GamePlay : Punishment/Reward System : Need some input

codeRooster

Hi. If im posting this in the wrong section , please let me know.

I have been playing with a idea to use in my game PartyTouch.

Background
You play a level
You win
You go to the reward screen
On the reward screen , you get money and you get a bonus
If you lose you go to the reward screen and get nothing

Now I want to add something additional
I want to add expenses (If you travel the world someone has to pay for the fuel of your private jet)
Expenses will be always there win or lose , you will just actually lose money if you fail a level

My thinking is
That if I add expenses , the player will ultimately play more because to unlock the next level you need money , and you will earn less , so you play more.
It will also function as a “stick” , so if I lose the level I lose cash.

What is your thoughts on this ?

Thanks for your input
Wimpie

Microdot

Cool, without knowing all the ins and outs it's hard to comment. I normally only employ this sort of idea if it affects something else. What I mean by this is I'd do it if:

1.) Not doing it results in not earning as much pts the next time (just an example)
2.) As a strategy to get rid of in game currency aka money pit / sink

Within the context of your own title it's not yet clear what the consequence is of not paying the expense or what the benefit is by paying it.

If there is no real reason, it may leave the player feeling a bit confused as to why it's there in the first place (except to slow down his progression - which you don't want to leave as an impression).

EDIT: Re-read the last part. If this is a way to make the game last longer, make sure it doesn't feel like punishment.

Elyaradine

I think that if it's a casual title, having you lose cash for losing is super horrible. I feel as if the attitude for casual titles is to have you feel rewarded for playing all of the time, with bonus rewards for playing better. Every time you play, you feel as if you've made progress.

With Starcraft 2 (which isn't a casual game, but I'm pretty much a casual player), I reached a point where I didn't want to play ranked games any more. I'd somehow gotten placed in a league that was better than I should have been (I placed Platinum the first time, when I really should have been in ~Silver), and lost some 7 games soon afterwards, and go no rewards for it whatsoever. I think they've since changed how this works to be friendlier to casual players, by switching to an experience system, where even if you lose, you still gain XP that unlocks various other things in the game; aside from the legacy achievements and things you got from the base game, all of the new unlockables are not based on how many wins you have. There's no penalty for losing, except possibly for dropping in your ranked ladder.

If you're aiming for a niche kind of market that really appreciates challenge and will play something over and over and over again for the sake of improving their skill, I think risk-reward can be skewed the other way. I just don't think this works for casual play (and while I haven't played your game, I got the impression it was aimed at more of that kind of audience).

Squidcor

I think this is a bad idea. Players will only want to continue playing if they are enjoying themselves. And forcing players to grind out more cash just to try a level again will feel unfair and tedious.

Generally, what works well in these kind of situations is risk/reward systems. Perhaps you could let the player choose some kind of riskier option where they will lose cash, but may be rewarded more handsomely if they succeed?

dislekcia

@Squidcor's got a good point. Don't take money away for losing, rather have players risk money up front and then if they lose, they've "lost" money in the long-term, but it doesn't feel like a punishment. That approach also means that you have to allow players to play without the risk element, but maybe they don't stand to win as much.

All of this is moot without an actual use for the money though. If money doesn't really matter in the big scope of your game, then why futz with it at all, it's essentially just score at that point.

codeRooster

@Microdot , I was initially thinking a money pit to reduce/slow game progress.

@Elyaradine , the game is aiming to be a casual game, thanks for your input.

@Squidcor, it makes sense that the player will start to feel discourage each time he/she loses, that I definitely don't want. I like your "gambling" option. Do you think it should be added before the game starts eg ."I bet $10000 that ill win" or something at the end like "You lost but for $25 000 you have a chance to win $100 000"

@dislekcia, You have a point, having money in a game that is not actually used. Currently my levels unlock automatically when you have a certain amount of cash. What is your opinion on this. Instead of auto unlock , have a pricetag on a level and then you have the option to pay eg. $15000 to buy your way into the club. This way you now actually use the money to progress and the player has the choice.

i love the feedback im geting here. Thank you !!!

dammit

Adding my two cents, though I feel as though I might just be repeating what has already been said.

From a psychology point of view, if you're trying to drive a behaviour (the player playing more) then rewards are more effective than punishments.

Games offer one of the few experiences where failing is perfectly okay. In fact, it's somewhat expected to such a degree that you wouldn't even think of it as failing - but more a process of getting to the right solution. Dying in spelunky? Hilarious and totally expected. Failing on a song in Rockband? Jeers from the crowd, but the option to do it again or change difficulties.

In both those cases, the fail-state doesn't come with any punishment. It has feedback - yes, this was clearly not the way to solve the puzzle/problem or succeed at the game, but that's okay. Try again - but nothing is taken away from the player and the player isn't made to feel like he or she is worth less.

Remember that if there is a money or points or value system in the game - it kind of represents the player's value. Taking away from that, and you're saying that the player isn't as good, or is worth less than they previously were. Not the greatest message.

And if they're getting that message when they try and fail at the game, then why should they try again?

____

On the note of rewards and levelling, it makes the most sense to level when you've achieved "mastery" of your current level. Doing things that way means that getting on to the next level took work and effort and is thus valuable, rather than something that you just needed to grind for (timing consuming, but without the assumption of any increase in skill).

codeRooster

@dammit, i like the psychology part. Are you saying that a person should not be punished in a game but just rewarded less ? So basically it would be like a skinnerBox, the rules of the game determines the reward regardless of the gameplay. Your opinion

If there were an icon would it be more appealing if it were a "?" question mark or a No Entry sign.

dammit

@codeRooster :) Skinner was all about behaviour, so his research and methods are always a good reference.

I would hate to make a blanket rule that "players should never be punished in a game" because in some instances, the punishment might be part of what makes the game fun. This will also depend greatly on your definition of what is punishment and what is feedback. And what is just simply part of the game mechanics ("bad things" happening in games isn't necessarily punishment for the players).

For a casual game, which is what I understood this one to be, I would think punishment or negative feedback would be out of place. If the driver of the game is that it's just fun to play - like RockBand, for example, where there is no real story and it's more about playing with friends and getting better at playing it - then you certainly don't want to punish your players for doing so.

On the other hand, horror games are designed to make the player uncomfortable, terrible things happen to their character and sometimes the player is even made to question their own actions - but this is the point of the game, and there's usually the motivation to uncover the deeper story, along with a whole lot of positive (and negative*) reinforcement for the player to continue playing the game.

*Negative reinforcement is not the same as punishment. Negative reinforcement is when you remove an adverse stimulus from the equation due to the behaviour.

In practice, positive reinforcement: (You want players to search their locations = behaviour you want to reinforce). Player searches room, player finds a gun.

Negative reinforcement: (You want the players to shoot the enemies = behaviour you want to reinforce). Player shoots enemies, enemies die and stop attacking.

Punishment: Player fails to search the room, player is attacked when defenceless and loses health points and dies.

Note how the punishment doesn't necessarily teach you to search the room? It might teach you to avoid monsters which isn't one of your goals at all.